Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Jehanne]

Yet you keep trying to supply empirical evidence to support the God Hypothesis. Why do you do that?

I am using observations in the world as premises in inductive arguments. Think really hard about the words 'premise' and 'inductive'.

To empirically test X isn't possible if X isn't some repeatable or reproducible phenomenon. But it's alway possible to give inductive arguments supporting the existence of X, and use empirical evidence in the premises.

Here is an example: Joan of Arc exist(ed). But there is no empirical test that we can perform in a laboratory leading us to her existence. However, an inductive argument along the lines of: (available historical accounts of various events in France's history and many elements of Joan of Arc's biography are better explained if she existed than not) would clearly be a fine argument.

This is just utter nonsense.  Historians know more about her than they know about anyone who lived prior to her or anyone who lived for several centuries after her.  Yes, we may all be but brains in vats, god may have created the World last Tuesday, etc.  But, if we decide to live in the real World, Jehanne la Pucelle existed as a historical person; her so-called Visions & Voices are another matter entirely.